Dear FIS colleages,
Thanks for the opinions received. Let us keep thinking about the issue.
On the one side, the fis list was explicitly conceived to be a helping
mechanism for "slow thinking" during the 90's. The Second Rule was
incorporated quite a few years ago, to put an end to nasty bubbles and
unceasing exchanges on trifling matters. It was not only a matter of too
many messages, but also that very influential parties left the list due
to those excesses (eg, Michael Arbib, Otto Rossler, Eduard Punset).
It is interesting that Daniel Kahneman speaks about two thinking
systems: System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic,
subconscious. System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical,
calculating, conscious...
Trying to implement the two thinking systems in the same list will
inevitably conduce (given the medium) to the preponderance of the
former. Mixed schemes will be confusing and will not work. Besides,
increasing the number of weekly messages to 3 or 4 will imply that 50 %
or 100 % more messages will be received. Not good at all.
Solution? Raquel and I are working (slowly, too slowly ) to migrate from
current FIS web pages at the University of Zaragoza to Sciforum
(courtesy from Shu-Kun Lin). It is also possible that we recuperate ALL
exchanges during last 17 years--lost during the ignominious server crash
a few months ago, it would become just anecdote. At Sciforum we will be
able to incorporate complementary spaces where fast and furious
exchanges might be maintained (for those frequent-post addicts), perhaps
useful to accompany the main, quiet discussion---or maybe the viceversa,
the slow thinking serving as a complement!
Well, at the time being, let us continue abiding by the Second Rule, and
let us wait for the changes... we should also prepare for the Vienna
encounter. By the way, a very interesting meeting refers to Adrian
Bejan's work on the "energy flow" that I mentioned days ago: the 9th
Constructal Law conference will be held in Parma on 18-19 May 2015, see:
http://www.clc2015.eu/
best regards to all---Pedro
Stanley N Salthe wrote:
I agree with Jerry
STAN
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:00 PM, pedro marijuan
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
<mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:37:32
To: Pedro C. Marijuan<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Subject: FIS, Weekly posting frequency.
Pedro:
Just a small suggestion about the rules for posting to the FIS
list serve.
Personally, I find the current constraint of two posts per week is
so restrictive that it makes a conversation very difficult. It
necessitates long delays, during which time, one looses interest
in the topic. (We are flooded by a plethora of new ideas!)
I feel that the value of the list would be enhanced by permitting
three or even four posts per week.
I would suggest that you consult with other members about this issue.
You may post this message to the list serve if you wish.
Cheers
Jerry
On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
> Dear Marcin and colleagues,
>
> Many thanks for the sympathy and for the suggestion. I think
your proposal is quite in the spirit of the fis initiative.
Maintaining the academic code of conduct should be the First Rule
of the list. The Second Rule, as is well known, says that only two
messages per week are allowed. And the Third Rule, should be about
clean posting. I mean, in order to placate the susceptibility of
the server filters the messages should be addressed only to fis,
exclusively, (a few other addresses might appear in the "cc", but
the lesser the better), and not dragging old messages at the
bottom is strongly recommended... Additionally, we have a fis
steering committee (integrated by Yixin, Krassimir, Shu-Kun, and
myself) that can arbitrate in contentious cases where the First
Rule should apply.
>
> Let us forget the present incident; always clarifying that FIS
list is completely open to criticisms, first on fis itself, and
also addressed to any other school or doctrine, either
contemporary or from the past... knowing the opinion of
"contrarians" is as much important as knowing the opinions of the
followers. INFORMATION HAS ENORMOUSLY CHANGED OUR
SCIENTIFIC-ECONOMIC-CULTURAL-SOCIAL WORLD AND WE NEED RADICALLY
DIFFERENT IDEAS. By the way, there is an important work on "social
physics" (but arguing from the information flow point of view) by
Alex Pentland that in my opinion establishes the very foundations
of "SOCIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE"--it is a pity, and possibly an
error (?), that this author has placed his exciting research under
the banner of physics.
>
> best wishes ---Pedro
>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
